Whether or not they succeed this is where EVs are headed. Without the need for a front end anymore this look will become the standard in the future. Personally I think it’s awesome, I want something that can haul a lot of stuff that isn’t too big to fit anywhere.
It’s not really ideal to have no front end from an aerodynamics perspective so I don’t think this is true from a universal perspective, although obviously some vehicles will want to prioritize space/footprint over aerodynamics, but many won’t.
The best shape for aero is teardrop or egg shaped with the round part in front and the tapered part in the rear, so there’s no reason why losing the hood is a bad thing for efficiency.
The height is a big issue for efficiency here - low cars obviously get much better efficiency from the same shape - but the shape itself, especially at the front, looks pretty efficient.
Can’t be that big of a draw back to not have a nose, eggs are pretty aerodynamic no? Regardless I’m sure well reach a point where range doesn’t matter anymore, I would argue it already doesn’t but everyone thinks they need 300+miles to be able to get to work every day lol.
A relatively blunt nose isn’t inherently disadvantageous from an aerodynamic perspective. In fact, it can often lead to better overall airflow relative to a tapered nose on a traditional car.
You know what would be badass? HD inflated nose cone and rear end. Inflated when traveling on open roads and improves drag coefficient. Not sure if this is practical but semis do have a metal oragami thing that is at the back of the trailer.
Whether or not they succeed this is where EVs are headed. Without the need for a front end anymore this look will become the standard in the future. Personally I think it’s awesome, I want something that can haul a lot of stuff that isn’t too big to fit anywhere.
You might think it’s awesome, until you meet something substantial coming the other way.
It’s not really ideal to have no front end from an aerodynamics perspective so I don’t think this is true from a universal perspective, although obviously some vehicles will want to prioritize space/footprint over aerodynamics, but many won’t.
The best shape for aero is teardrop or egg shaped with the round part in front and the tapered part in the rear, so there’s no reason why losing the hood is a bad thing for efficiency.
The height is a big issue for efficiency here - low cars obviously get much better efficiency from the same shape - but the shape itself, especially at the front, looks pretty efficient.
they use fluid dynamics these days, the wind tunnel is a computer.
Canoo:
BODY
• Steel body
• Drag coefficient: CdA 1.04 (Cd 0.33)
• Cabin mounted on rolling chassis (skateboard architecture)
• Thermoplastic (thermoplastic polymer) outer skin is robust, lightweight, corrosion free and dent resistant
.33 is towards the bottom, but not bad (F150 is .5, Volvos come in around .3)
https://www.myevreview.com/comparison-chart/drag-coefficient
Delivery trucks don’t necessarily need to be aerodynamic. If their use case is in town or a lot of stop and go.
Can’t be that big of a draw back to not have a nose, eggs are pretty aerodynamic no? Regardless I’m sure well reach a point where range doesn’t matter anymore, I would argue it already doesn’t but everyone thinks they need 300+miles to be able to get to work every day lol.
A relatively blunt nose isn’t inherently disadvantageous from an aerodynamic perspective. In fact, it can often lead to better overall airflow relative to a tapered nose on a traditional car.
Yeah someone posted an aerodynamics analysis awhile ago, and basically the conclusion was reverse teardrop design provides best airflow
You know what would be badass? HD inflated nose cone and rear end. Inflated when traveling on open roads and improves drag coefficient. Not sure if this is practical but semis do have a metal oragami thing that is at the back of the trailer.
You’re acting like vehicles with short noses never existed before this.
Oh is that what I said.